"Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality & Legality Meet" Topic

…For decades, the United States has relied on the Coast Guard's unique legal authorities, backed by Navy support, to interdict drug shipments on the high seas. Those operations follow a predictable pattern: warning shots, disabling fire, boarding, seizure of evidence, and arrest. A patchwork of bilateral agreements ensures suspects face extradition and trial in U.S. federal courts.

This strike marks a sharp departure from that process…

Proceedings Magazine: link

The old process sounds as if it was designed to make sure you don't kill people who aren't smuggling drugs …

The article raises exactly the concerns I thought of when the strike was first announced. There's no way to be sure we hit a boat of smugglers when the boat is gone and passengers dead.

Come on man!!

The drug lords asked the President to aid them in turning their product into powder. He happily obliged. 😉

Since when was the death penalty introduced for drug smuggling into the US ?

"Since when was the death penalty introduced for drug smuggling into the US ?"

🤔 so you are happy shelling out taxpayer money to house, feed and provide medical care for someone killing US citizens and forcing the hiring of more and more law enforcement, at …. yes! Taxpayers expense.

Oh wait! You aren't from the U.S.? Better that we arrest comedians for "thought crimes" like the UK? 😉

Does the US recognize them as terrorists?
If that is already acknowledged and confirmed, then it is open season.

"Stop and show me your manifest", is for when in doubt.

Troopwo, yes, the president has had the narco cartels designated as terrorist organizations. This puts them into a completely different category and the gloves come off. The military is allowed to respond.

"The drug lords asked the President to aid them in turning their product into powder"

But, only after Hunter got to do his QC check on several kilos.

troopwo+1

And while the Trump admin is being exceedingly polite to Mexico right now, past use of force authorization against foreign terrorist groups can result in terrorist facilities and people just blowing up without the approval of the host government…

"But, only after Hunter got to do his QC check on several kilos."

I heard rumors that he jumped off one of our ships after we sunk the drug boat and was trailing the debris with his nose to the water.

😉

35th, if the law says execute drug smugglers, then capture them, give them a fair trial and execute them. If the law says imprison them, then spend the money on keeping them in prison until their time is up.

But don't kill people before you know 100% whether they are drug smugglers or not, that is plain murder.

*snup*

No, they declared them terrorists. So pretty much open season.

But I'll ask: Is your country willing to take them and imprison them, totally at your cost and guarantee at least a 50 year sentence? If so, have your government get in touch with the President.

But until then, I'm fine with the outcome.

Extra judicial executions without due process. That's what terrorists do.

So…

I blame the "drug crisis" solely on the customers.

So far there is no evidence given by the administration that says they were terrorists, drug dealers or even that the ship was sailing for the US. they were international waters. Before we argue over what to do with captured drug runners let first know if they really are drug dealers.

so you are happy shelling out taxpayer money to house, feed and provide medical care for someone killing US citizens and forcing the hiring of more and more law enforcement, at …. yes! Taxpayers expense.

Putting aside the bullish tone of some of the comments here, really 35thOVI, that's where you want to go with the US criminal justice system? Or does extrajudicial execution to save money just apply to foreigners?

My take is that if this is start of wider series of such actions it will sooner or later backfire.

I'm not a lawyer but I've had a lot of involvement with ROE and LOAC over the years. The designation of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization appears pretty tenuous to me. "Terrorist" and "Terrorism" are notoriously contested topics, but I believe pretty much everybody would agree that the definition includes some variation on the use or threat of violence for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Drug cartels are unquestionably bad people, but I see it as a big stretch to say they are motivated by a political agenda here.

Thereafter, it would appear these were _suspected_ terrorists. So what were the ID criteria and ROE here? Driving a speedboat in international waters in the general direction of the USA? Just on a practical level, how long before a boat load of fishermen or tourists are killed? Anyone with an axe to grind against the US would have a field day.

As a thought experiment for a moment, let's turn this around: US military personnel kill 11 unarmed civilians in international waters without justification and in furtherance of a political agenda. What does that sound like to you?

Grattan all you asked for has been said by representatives of the government. I know your channels don't show them speaking about it, or at least not unedited versions anyway.

As far as those overseas, myself, I don't give 2 shakes of Meghan Markle's maracas (in which she keeps Prince Harry's Cahones) what your opinion of the ship sinking is. No one had issues with nailing Muslim terrorists boats in Somalia or Yemen.

🐑 🐑 🐑

John, you who are : yes drug users are "just as guilty", but left leaning politicians, judges and voters, refuse to hold them accountable and cried racism and outrage when they used to be imprisoned. They changed the laws, release them or send them to drug treatment (which does not seem to be working too well). So what is your solution to "the users" that has not been tried?

As far as the Americas:

"Following the U.S. military strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean in early September 2025, Venezuela's government was the main and most vocal complainer."

Should we be concerned about Maduro‘s opinion? 😂

"International legal experts have stated that the lethal strike could be a violation of international human rights and maritime law."

"Could" be. I guess if countries feel it's egregious enough, they can send their fleet to stop us. But I don't really think anyone really cares too much about narco terrorists. 😉

woollygooseuk+

Out of curiosity, what concrete evidence of non-Id do any of you have? There is no way the MSM has the intel used. Everything on the web is speculation, just as on the "news" shows.

By the way:

"The Biden administration designated Tren de Aragua a transnational crime organization last year.

Once Trump resumed the presidency, he went further. In February, he designated Tren de Aragua as a "foreign terrorist organization," along with other similar groups in Latin America, something normally used for political groups such as al-Qaeda, not criminal gangs.

Trump holds the group responsible for what he describes as a flow of violent migrants into the U.S. who he says terrorize people in cities."

"As with previous administrations that declared common enemies, such as Al Qaeda, as subject to attack, the Trump administration, on Day 1 of its second term, designated the Tren de Aragua cartel out of Venezuela – the target of last week's strike – a terrorist group. To date, the administration has designated over a dozen groups – about half of them Mexican – as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)."

"The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"

If you want to lose sleep over these 11, I guess, lose that sleep.

All they sunk an unmanned one too in the last day or so. How do we know it was unmanned!? Was it un-womaned?! Maybe children or animals were on board?! Do we know what was in those bags!? It could have been aid for the children of the world?! Harumph!!! Harrumph!! Send out fleets to stop this!! 😡😡😡

Woolly, now casting aside my responses to anti Trumpism.

Yea what you say is feasible. The more possible, would be anyone claiming a group is a terrorist group and using it as justification for attacks in international waters. For instance, China, designates let's say the Filipinos as a terrorist group to justify sinking their ships in international Waters.

Not true, but China is a naval power, so short of war, who stops them? Even then, very few have the capability or want to suffer the results of a confrontation with them. ☢️

So yes, so
much room for misuse, true.

In our case, only things I know to be true.

Tren de Aragua has caused many deaths and crime in the U.S. and is actively recruiting on our soil.
Venezuela sent members of Tren de Aragua from their country to the U.S. during the Biden illegal open flood gate.
Tren de Aragua Is a drug dealing and shipping narco group.

What I believe to be fact
The current leader of Venezuela is a corrupt dictator in the pocket of drug runners to keep him afloat.
We have intel from the opposition in that country giving us details of almost everything that's going on and we had lots of intel on that boat and others.
We will continue to do this.

What I only conjecture
The President is hoping the leader of Venezuela will give him an excuse to get rid of him by sinking these boats.

Thereafter, it would appear these were _suspected_ terrorists. So what were the ID criteria and ROE here?

Interesting. If you don't agree with having to thoroughly ID the perps, or question whether obliteration is appropriate justice, you're an anti-Trumper!

Did ANYONE here express a flying fig about the 3,000 drone strikes Obama conducted on known and suspected terrorists. Nope. Silence. He killed 6 US citizens, including a kid -- Silence.

So why the sudden concern over rights and due process?

Did anyone demand proof that a suspected terrorist was indeed such? Did anyone demand due process, and all that?

No. The designation of the Cartels as foreign terrorist organization changes things from Law Enforcement to Military Action. It also changes the game on economic and political actions to combat the cartels in terms of siezing assets, applying diplomatic pressure on nations and organizations to help combat terrorism, applying sanctions and so on.

Why do you object to the Cartels being called terrorist groups?

Tren de Aragua Is a drug dealing and shipping narco group.

TdA has also been linked to Maduro-regime backed murders of regime dissidents and exiles. So they are also being used as a tool of asynchronous warfare.

Trump can do no wrong. He is an absolute and total genius.
Hasn't everyone received the memo? 🤷

Here young go John

For all the U.S. members who are vehemently anti-Trump, another assassination today. But no big deal, just another MAGA and they should be exterminated like vermin!! Right??

"So why the sudden concern over rights and due process?"
You've missed the point. It was a comment (now deleted) over the immediate assumtions that were made.

"Ready on the right, ready on the left,,,"

It helps to understand the US view if you have seen the deliberate destruction that these cartels have caused in the US.

Only now do we understand why so many asian countries treat anyone dealing drugs with the death penalty.

Troop +1

The cartels' next move will be to visibly place small children on their boats. You gonna blow up little kiddies? If so, you lose the PR battle right there… ;-)

This was a grain of said in the never ending drugs business. The customers always drive the market. US domestic meth production has been outdone by the cartels. They have endless cash for precursor components.

But the attack has immense political propaganda value …a piece of showmanship to continue acclimating US citizens to the use of the military for law enforcement. Next up – Apocalypse Now in Chicago per the POTUS notification via meme.

The horrendous assasination today was a loss for everyone, and it makes things worse for everyone. We will see what comes of it. Another sad day inthe USA.

"So why the sudden concern over rights and due process?"
You've missed the point. It was a comment (now deleted) over the immediate assumtions that were made.

The US treated the cartels as law enforcement for 40 years -- how's that worked out, especially since Mexico has been captured by the cartels at the highest levels of government.

troopwo+1

The horrendous assasination today was a loss for everyone, and it makes things worse for everyone. We will see what comes of it. Another sad day inthe USA.

Now if we could only get the Democrat "leaders" to abandon their constant drumbeat of violent inflammatory rhetoric, maybe we'd have a chance…

Oh, that's rich!

We have to break the law to enforce the law? That probably isn't a good path to take. The US Gov't. can't be designating people as criminals or terrorists or events as emergencies and invasions without evidence, proof or 3rd party approval every time it wants to eliminate someone or something without explanation.

The use of military force is ultimately controlled by the Constitution, including:

Executive authority as Commander-in-Chief.

The requirement for Congressional authorization for acts of war under the War Powers Resolution.

A one-off or ongoing strike on drug traffickers abroad may exceed executive authority if not backed by law or a declaration of war. If the president orders lethal military strikes against traffickers abroad — especially in another country's waters or airspace — that goes beyond mere executive "command" and veers into hostilities, which normally require Congressional authorization.

Well, if we are keeping score, yes it's ironic. But our two political gangs have normalized low order speech in the current era even if one gang member got the ball rolling. Now they all do it.

It's "Democratic Party" as you know, not Democrat Party". I am not a member. But that's what they are called.

The drum beats both ways and we are all suffering from conspiratorial delusions while a few guys make off with the golden goose.

I do not want the military to respond to civil matters. Stop gutting federal law enforcement, give the agencies back their morale and self respect, give THEM the resources. There are bad crime years and so so crime years. There are never no crime years no matter how much you want to believe. Better to get smart, tough is not the first option in dealing with drug sellers and their customers. You can't blow up 50 million people. Or put them in prison. Or chase them all over the country with American soldiers.

I seem to recall calling out Obama drone striking US citizens without due process on this very site. It's a bad look all around. If other nations did to us what we routinely do to them, we'd scream to high heaven. Can you imagine China drone striking someone they designate a terrorist in Des Moines?

We use the big stick too casually because we can. Someday that will bite us hard.

That said, I lose no sleep over the rights of Cartels. They are scum, but we either are a nation of laws or we are not. I've said it before and will repeat it here- we are the greatest nation on earth when we act like it. A lot times we don't act like it.

Now that the cartels are teaming up with foreign countries, it is a whole other matter that had best be dealt with.

I could go on quite a bit about this but it is best not dealt with on this board.

Act now while you still have a country.

Since when was the death penalty introduced for drug smuggling into the US ?

Since my niece died of an accidental fentanyl overdose, that's when. These creatures have killed 100,000s of Americans. I don't cry for them.

@35thOVI SBminisguy and Tortorella

For all the U.S. members who are vehemently anti-Trump, another assassination today. But no big deal, just another MAGA and they should be exterminated like vermin!! Right??

Now if we could only get the Democrat "leaders" to abandon their constant drumbeat of violent inflammatory rhetoric, maybe we'd have a chance…

The drum beats both ways and we are all suffering from conspiratorial delusions while a few guys make off with the golden goose.

A couple of you are posters I had a civilized conversation with recently about tariffs etc?

I don't know why this person's killing is any more outrageous than the daily gun violence we've become accustomed to in this country but accusing a party of contributing to this act before we even know who the shooter is is a tad irresponsible and premature. If we're going to make baseless accusations without receipts, then that's part of the problem and not the solution.

Let's remain cool until the facts are in and work together to end this, not counter violent rhetoric with more violent rhetoric.

Legal Eagle has done a video on this which I highly recommend. Very detailed. It points out, several times, that Obama conducted any number of legally dubious drone strikes.

Rather than arguing about drug dealers, I think it's easiest to see what's happened by asking two inverted questions:

#1 If Russia or China blew up a boat full of Americans in international waters and then said they were terrorists or drug dealers without offering proof, would you feel the same as you do in this case? Or would you be furious? Is this only okay because the US did it? Would you say "I don't care about drug dealers' lives" or would you want accountability?

#2 If this is okay, what is not okay? Trump has gone further than Obama. The people who said Obama went too far seem to be okay with Trump's actions. But at what point, exactly, is the use of force not okay? Here we have killings without a trial, without proof, without a chance to surrender. Can the president or the government simply kill people as an unsupported executive decision?

Obama killed US citizens. We know that for a fact. Trump may have killed US citizens, we'll never know. If he hasn't but does more of this, he will. Who the people are on the boat doesn't matter, since we'll never know who they were.

Government is force. The state is violence. The whole point of a civilized government is that there are specific limits to when and how the state can use violence on people. The US had some of the best limits in history. We've got a lot less limits on the state's use of force now than we had a year ago.

As I said previously:

There is a large faction of disenfranchised in Venezuela, working against the current regime and looking to the US for support. We "DO NOT" know the extent of intel the U.S. was working with. I'm willing to bet they knew exactly who and what was on that boat. Just like they knew what was on the unmanned boat.

The worldwide media knows absolutely nothing and the media on both sides are reporting based on emotions.

Facts:

"The incident took place in international waters, near Venezuelan territory in the southern Caribbean."

"The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"

Incavart I believe they now have a very good idea about what motivated the killer. Most of the information was in right leaning sources this morning, but now also reported by the WSJ. The only question lies in which aspect of the radical left it was. My bet goes with a very violent group recently. We will see.

But I can say this for sure:

Matthew Dowd Was wrong and now it cost him his job.

"Around 3 p.m. ET, as networks were scrambling for more details of what happened, MSNBC's Katy Tur spoke about Utah's gun laws before asking Dowd to talk about the "environment in which a shooting like this happens." He told her, "We don't know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration. So we have no idea about this."

He added about Kirk, "He's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that's the unfortunate environment we are in.""

Now if one really wants out there in the ozone speculation:

"Some social media users praised the killing of the US conservative who was sharply critical of Kiev's government"

This is from a Russian source "RT" trying to insinuate the Ukraine was behind the assassination because of Charlie's past statements and Ukrainian social media posts. Like I said, ozone. 🙄

I don't know why this person's killing is any more outrageous than the daily gun violence we've become accustomed to in this country

Because he was a prominent political and cultural figure, and a journalist, who was assassinated in the public square exercising and modeling how civil discourse takes place, how free speech ought to work. This strikes to the heart of a functioning free society -- are you free to speak your mind, or will someone literally kill you for it?

The murder weapon was a bolt action scoped rifle. A single shot was fired. When the murderer is caught, unless he turns out to be a former felon or with a history of mental illness, I'm unaware of any gun control statute that will apply.

Regardless of politics, this is a young father exercising his First Amendment rights and the act is both abhorrent and damaging to the entire country.

Nobody knows the motive of this criminal and assigning blame politically, absent his actual capture is simple speculation.

The murder weapon was a bolt action scoped rifle. A single shot was fired. When the murderer is caught, unless he turns out to be a former felon or with a history of mental illness, I'm unaware of any gun control statute that will apply.

Regardless of politics, this is a young father exercising his First Amendment rights and the act is both abhorrent and damaging to the entire country.

Nobody knows the motive of this criminal and assigning blame politically, absent his actual capture is simple speculation.

"Regardless of politics, this is a young father exercising his First Amendment rights and the act is both abhorrent and damaging to the entire country."

👍

Incavart I believe they now have a very good idea about what motivated the killer. Most of the information was in right leaning sources this morning, but now also reported by the WSJ. The only question lies in which aspect of the radical left it was. My bet goes with a very violent group recently. We will see.

I thought we didn't know much.

But I can say this for sure:

Matthew Dowd Was wrong and now it cost him his job.

"Around 3 p.m. ET, as networks were scrambling for more details of what happened, MSNBC's Katy Tur spoke about Utah's gun laws before asking Dowd to talk about the "environment in which a shooting like this happens." He told her, "We don't know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration. So we have no idea about this."

He added about Kirk, "He's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that's the unfortunate environment we are in.""

Yes, that wasn't helpful.

Neither was this:

This was an opportunity to deliver a unifying message that lowered the national temperature and he completely dropped the ball.

It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree. Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans, like Charlie, to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.

My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.

From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.

Can we agree that he also deserves to lose his job?

Many POTUS as some noted here have taken action against terrorists, etc. without declaring war and going thru Congress. When dealing with terrorists you have to take the shot. Killing them before they kill some of us.

Terrorism has changed the paradigm of declaring war … killing them seems to be the best option. The more the better … We know from nature that only the strong survive …

Even back in the 1970s, there were talk among the Division staffs, 1 Cav and 2 Armored concerning deployment to the border. Plans were drawn up for the logistics, the unit rotation and what weapons and support vehicles that a unit would take. Though not assigned to my planning group. The rules of engagement and lethal allows was the most confrontational section of the plan.

So we have had such plans for decades. No problem until politicians get involved.

Ask the current Chinese how they feel about the British inundating their country with opium.

Now understand that they feel that strongly about it even a hundred plus years after the fact.

Incavart based on the last part of your last post, half or more of current Democratic politician's and the last two Democratic Presidents should have and should currently lose their jobs.

I can list the reasons if you like, but that really should not be necessary.

According to web sources the murderer is Tyler Robinson. A scholarship student. Highly intelligent according to his mother and ACT scores. Turned in around Zion Park accompanied by his father and a minister.

May be wrong, but seems the information is good. Will know for sure very soon.

It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree. Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.

Why should he "lose his job" because of stating this, that violence and death is the result of demonizing others? During 2020 several actual and presumed Trump supporters were killed by De…leftists. I recall how the mayor of my hometown gave the police a "stand down" order and let an Antifa mob beat down people at a Trump rally. Boy, that sure made me feel safe and secure and trusting of my local government, that a Democrat mayor would parcel out public safety based on who you supported in politics!

For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans, like Charlie, to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.

How is he wrong? And he said "Radical Left" not "Democrats" -- so who here, exactly is being offended? I guess if you feel you're "Radical Left"??

My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.

What, you don't want the political violence to end?? You don't want an end to organized assaults on local and Federal law enforcement?

From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.

How is he wrong in any of his examples?